Bryn Mawr Classical Review
04.01.13

John Grainger's second book, Hellenistic Phoenicia, follows
remarkably closely on the heels of his first, The Cities of Seleukid
Syria
(Oxford University Press, 1990), and deals with the same region and the
same period. Both deal with the impact of Graeco-Macedonian expansion
into the Near-East. While in his earlier volume, G. dealt with the
imposition of an entirely new Graeco-Macedonian urban network on Syria, in
this second book he considers the manner in which the cities of Phoenicia,
which existed and partook of a distinctive culture before the arrival of
Alexander, survived through Macedonian conquest and Ptolemaic and Seleucid
rule.

In his Introduction, G. refers to three important themes. The
first is (p.3) the Phoenician cities' "methods of survival, the
compromises they made to do so, and their varying responses to Greek and
Macedonian power." The second theme is the fascinating issue of the
cultural relationship between Phoenician and Graeco-Macedonian.1 To what degree did Phoenicia preserve a distinctive
cultural identity? Does the concept of "Hellenistic Phoenicia" have any
meaning at all beyond
the purely geographic and chronological definition? The final theme is
the economy of Phoenicia in the Hellenistic period, a question raised by
the reputation of Phoenicians as traders.

The organisation of the
book is generally chronological rather than thematic, and given the
extremely limited nature of the evidence G. is dealing with, this tends to
weaken his ability to tackle these key problems. However, this arrangement
works well
enough for a study of the political and military impact between the
Graeco-Macedonians and Phoenicians. 360-287 B.C.E. was a period of
tremendous upheaval in Phoenicia, with the revolt of Sidon against
Achaemenid rule in 345 B.C.E and its subsequent destruction (though G.
suggests, sensibly enough, that the latter was not as severe as implied by
Diodorus' account) and the arrival of Alexander in 333-2 B.C.E. G.
illustrates the varied responses of the Phoenician cities to Alexander.
The ruler of Aradus submitted, the king of Sidon was overthrown (perhaps
by Alexander or perhaps by his own people) and replaced by a
pro-Macedonian (and perhaps more popular) appointee. Tyre, of course,
resisted and was captured after a prolonged siege. Alexander is supposed
to have executed 2000 leading citizens but maintained the king in power,
and G. suggests (p.36-7) that he showed a preference for monarchs and
popular control, as opposed to some form of oligarchy, which the 2000
executed men may have represented. After the siege of Tyre, no Phoenician
city seems to have resisted occupation, despite the shifting control of
the area by Ptolemaic and Antigonid/Seleucid armies in the following
decades. G. suggests (p.50-51) that the sacks of Sidon and Tyre had taught
the value of cooperation and compromise with conquerors.

The years
287-225 B.C.E. saw the Ptolemies gain and maintain control of the cities
(except for Aradus), and the disappearance of the Phoenician monarchies.
G. suggests (p.58) that in some cases the depositions were carried out by
Graeco-Macedonian rulers because the kings had failed to change sides
swiftly enough in the period of rapidly changing hegemony early in the
century. They were replaced by nominally republican constitutions of "the
Tyrians" and "the Sidonians," with epigraphic formulae (in Greek)
suggesting similarities to the boule and demos combination
of
contemporary
Greek cities in the area. Little is known about civic magistrates or the
franchise, and the only possible expression of something untypical of
Hellenistic cities in general is the use of the Greek term dikastes
for
a
Sidonian magistrate in an inscription, a usage which may reflect the
Phoenician title shofet (p.65-6; 81). However, just as in Seleucid
northern Syria, (p.66) "real power, military power lay in the hands of the
king, Ptolemaic or Seleukid." Thus there is little evidence of any major
political distinction between the "Phoenician" cities and the "Greek"
foundations of the Hellenistic world.

The Seleucids gained control
of Phoenicia early in the second century, but from late in that same
century there is evidence of increased assertion of local independence in
the Phoenician cities as royal control broke down. This phenomenon
occurred in other geographically marginal areas of the Seleucid kingdom
too, notably those controlled by the Palmyrene, Ituraean and Emesene
neighbours of Phoenicia. As before the Macedonian conquest, in Phoenicia
this independence focused on the autonomy of individual cities, not some
wider political and cultural entity of that name.

Thus G. provides
a good survey and discussion of the limited evidence regarding the
political histories of the cities of Hellenistic Phoenicia in the
Hellenistic period. But what of his second theme, that of cultural
identity? Regarding the violence and shifting control of the period
360-287 B.C.E. G. raises the pessimistic possibility (p.51) that the
"cultural heritage (of the Phoenician cities) was also surely mutilated
beyond repair, leaving an impoverishment which Greek culture could hope to
fill."
As noted above, there is little to distinguish the Phoenician cities from
"Greek" Hellenistic cities in terms of political situation and
institutions. Likewise the ruling classes are known to have engaged in
Greek philosophy, Greek athletics and to have set up inscriptions in
Greek. In contrast, Grainger refers us to sites away from the major urban
centres, such as the cult centre of Astarte at Wasta and the rural
community and cult centre of Umm el-Amed. The former (p.78) "remains
resolutely local, Phoenician and traditional" in terms of the names of
worshippers, the languages they employed and the cult symbolism employed.
The latter (p.81-82) includes inscriptions in Phoenician (and only in
Phoenician), and, according to Grainger, the material culture
such as pottery shows little evidence of external influence, except for
imported Rhodian amphorae. "Yet of Hellenization there is no sign" (p.81)
he claims of Umm el-Amed. Examination of the excavation report suggests
that this assertion is an unfortunate over-generalization.2 Certainly the inscriptions are Phoenician, and the
courtyard plans of the temples on the site owe much more to Near Eastern
antecedents than to contemporary Greek planning. However, the details of
those temples, such as the architectural mouldings and the forms of column
capitals and bases show very strong Greek influences. As G. indicates,
there are fragments of imported Rhodian amphorae. But the report indicates
that there were significant quantities of characteristically Hellenistic
black-slipped wares and some red-slipped "Hellenistic Pergamene" (Eastern
Sigillata). On a more fundamental level, the bulk of the pottery from the
site, which the excavators suggest was of local production and which G.
dismisses as "the usual local type," displays strong evidence of the
influence of the wider Hellenistic world. The forms of most of those
vessels, incurved rim bowls, everted rim bowls, fish-plates, fusiform
unguentaria and even a lagynos and an amphoriskos, would be at home at
just about any site in the Hellenistic world. Certainly these are not
"Phoenician" in origin. The inhabitants of the site may not have been
importing much pottery from Greece, but local potters were copying shapes
from Greece and elsewhere in the Hellenistic world. The significance,
nature and chronology of this "Hellenization" of the material culture of
the site are all open to dispute, but it deserves more careful
consideration than G. gives them. This tends to weaken the dichotomy
between the "Hellenized elite culture" of the urban centres and the
supposedly "more traditional" culture of the rural population.

In
addition, one must take issue with some of G.'s comments regarding what
one might describe as "pan-Semitic" cultural sympathies (such as his
description, on p.145 of Tyre and the Jews under John Hyrcanus as
"both-self-consciously Semitic"), which manifested themselves as
occasional political cooperation between Phoenicians, Jews and Ituraeans
in the late Hellenistic period. The evidence of such cooperation is slim
enough, and there is plenty of evidence for conflict between "Semites"
too, as G. himself documents (cf. p.153f., between Phoenicians and
Ituraeans). What cooperation existed surely was based on immediate and
practical considerations. Even if those responsible for policy-making in
Phoenician cities at that time (the "hellenized" urban elite discussed
above) had any conception of themselves as "Semitic," surely it was as
Phoenician or Tyrian rather than "Semitic" in any general sense which
included Jews and Ituraeans too.

The third topic considered in the
book is the economy of Hellenistic Phoenicia. Of course, Phoenicians are,
and were, known as traders, but at a more basic level it might be
interesting to consider the contribution of local agricultural resources
to the development of Hellenistic Phoenicia. Unfortunately there is
little evidence. We do not have a clear idea of the rural hinterland
controlled by the individual cities at specific times, and we lack
archaeological survey data. However, G. does marshal some of the
scattered evidence for the rural economy, including olive oil production
at Umm el-Amed and Sarepta (p.67-69) and the possible Phoenician
involvement in the development of villages in the hinterland (p.114). For
the most part G. focuses on trade and traders, since that was how
Phoenicians appeared to the Greeks and Romans to whom we owe most of our
evidence. Much of what G. says is reasonable. However, when he tries to
make a case for the Phoenicians as the developers of trade routes
eastwards in the Achaemenid and Hellenistic periods, to the Red Sea,
Arabia and India,
by way of Syria and the Euphrates, he does seem to be stretching some very
tenuous evidence too far. If Phoenicians were important in trade east
along the Euphrates, one might expect to find evidence of their presence
at Dura Europos, for example, along with the Palmyrenes who are attested
there, albeit in the later Hellenistic and Roman period.

Grainger
does a good job of bringing the scattered evidence for his subject
together and raises interesting questions. The fact that the answers to
those questions often are inconclusive reflects more on the limitations of
the evidence rather than the author's judgement. However, an occasional
lack of sophistication and understanding in the handling of archaeological
evidence (also a failing of G.'s first book) does tend to detract from the
work's qualities.

NOTES

[1] This issue has been addressed in an important
article by Fergus Millar, "The Phoenician Cities: A Case Study of
Hellenisation," Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society
209
(1983), 55-71.